A/HRC/26/36 requirements of accountability: The Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (Code)14 and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials of 1990 (Basic Principles).15 The Code is provided with a commentary, further elaborating on its articles. 44. These two instruments have been developed through intensive dialogue between law enforcement and human rights experts, and have been endorsed by a large number of States.16 They are widely accepted as authoritative statements of the law.17 45. These instruments are available in all six United Nations languages and in a number of other languages as well.18 At the same time, it is a matter of concern that important constituencies do not seem to know about them – for example, standard textbooks on “police use of force” fail to cite them. 46. The right to life has two components. The first and material component is that every person has a right to be free from the arbitrary deprivation of life: it places certain limitations on the use of force. The second and more procedural component is the requirement of proper investigation and accountability where there is reason to believe that an arbitrary deprivation of life may have taken place. 47. As is the case with other rights, States are required to respect and to protect the right to life. This, in the words of article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, includes the duty to do so “by law”. The police in any society will at some point be confronted with a situation where they have to decide whether to use force and, if so, how much. Enacting an adequate domestic legal framework for such use of force by police officials is thus a State obligation, and States that do not do this are in violation of their international obligations. 48. According to the United Nations Human Rights Committee: States parties should take measures not only to prevent and punish deprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary killing by their own security forces. The deprivation of life by the authorities of the State is a matter of the utmost gravity. Therefore, the law must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his life by such authorities.19 49. In Nadege Dorzema and others v. Dominican Republic the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (24 October 2012) held that the Dominican State had failed to comply with its obligation to protect the right to life because it had failed to adopt adequate legal 14 15 16 17 18 19 8 Adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 34/169 (1979). See also, Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, E.S.C Res. 1989/65, 24 May 1989. Adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Cuba, 1990. United Nations General Assembly resolution 45/111 adopted without a vote the same year welcomed the Basic Principles. A/61/311, para. 35. For example, it served expressly as the model for the National Guidelines on the Use of Force in Australia. Bronitt et al. (eds.), Shooting to kill, Hart, 2012, p. 153. In 2011, the Government of Brazil established Guidelines on the Use of Force by Agents of Public Safety, based on the Basic Principles – see http://www.unodc.org/lpo-brazil/en/frontpage/2011/01/05-governo-brasileiro-estabelecediretrizes-sobre-o-uso-da-forca-por-agentes-de-seguranca-publica.html. See http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=103&language_id=1&lnk_count=20&month=&year=&categ ory_id=12&category_type=3&group. Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 6 (1982), para. 3; and Nils Melzer, Targeted Killing in International Law, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 104 and 105.